Interfederation

[Scott Koranda <>]

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Tom Scavo 
<>
 wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Warren Anderson
> <>
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 24, 2013, at 18:35 , Tom Scavo 
>> <>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> The comments made on July 31 still stand:
>>>
>>> https://lists.incommon.org/sympa/arc/tac/2013-07/msg00068.html
>>
>> Can you circulate that email for those of us who are not authorized to 
>> read the TAC list archives?
>
> Oops. Let me start from scratch.
>
> * In item 1a, it is not clear to me that we actually need agreements
> with *both* eduGAIN *and* the UK federation. As I understand it, the
> UKf is currently working on importing to (and exporting from) eduGAIN
> metadata. If so, why do we need a separate agreement with UKf? Isn't
> that what eduGAIN is for?
>

I disagree. We need agreements with both eduGAIN and the UK federation.

Joining eduGAIN and making that framework useful for InCommon members
like LIGO is a process. The end result will be fantastic but will take
time. Surely there will be a number of issues to work through and
because of the relatively large number of eduGAIN participants, many
with divergent views, it will take time to work through those issues.

In the meantime a bilateral agreement with the UK is immediately
beneficial. The pilot projects already underway between LIGO and
Cardiff (and now Glasgow) have been extremely helpful in driving work
forward and helping both sides of the project raise awareness "up the
food chain" of the benefits of federated identity and international
interfederation.

I value the bilateral work that has already been done between InCommon
and the UK federation and would like to see it formalized so that we
can continue to move forward and explore the space.

Thanks,

Scott K